January 17, 2012

We're already discussing the filed petitions here, so this post is about the interview. Here's the transcript, which reveals what I think will be Walker's central theme in the recall campaign:

WALKER: People have seen no matter how many attack ads from the big government union bosses, the bottom line is the reforms are working.

RUSH: And so they're living the reforms that you've made, they're actually demonstrable.

WALKER: Yeah, we have a great choice here. We don't even know who the candidate is against us yet other than we know the real opponent will be this money coming in from out of state from these government unions, but in the end it's a real choice. You can go back to the days of double-digit tax increases, billion-dollar budget deficits, and record job loss, because in the three years before I took office Wisconsin lost 150,000 private sector jobs, or we can move forward and ultimately be in a position where we can move the state forward. We've had a net increase of jobs this year. We balanced the budget without tax increases. We did it the old-fashioned way. We made structural changes that think more about the next generation than just about the next election. And we were able to protect core services by making these reforms. That's where I think the majority of people in our state want to go... I think the facts, if given a chance to get out, will ultimately allow us to yet again earn the trust of a majority of people in our state.

In 2010, the union membership rate--the percent of wage and salary workers who were members of a union--was 11.9 percent, down from 12.3 percent a year earlier, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The number of wage and salary workers be-longing to unions declined by 612,000 to 14.7 million. In 1983, the first year for which comparable union data are available, the union membership rate was 20.1 per-cent, and there were 17.7 million union workers.

In one situation the predecessor was a lib. But BHO inherited 800,000 job losses per month from a con who cut taxes for the rich and started overseas nation building wars. That is why we can't blame the con for the disaster that occurred following his con policies because con policies create growth, not disaster. And, the fact that BHO's election has resulted in a job market that is creating one million more jobs per month, relative to what he inherited, is irrelevant.

Walker has been raising out of state money (he's in NYC doing that tonight, I believe), so decrying it as somehow untoward is laughable. Besides, it doesn't matter how much is raised out of state, those million-plus signatures were from Wisconsin. It's highly unlikely that there will be 500,000 Mikey Mouse signatures, as Rush seems to believe.

The state lost 11,700 private sector jobs in November, according to the monthly report issued Dec. 15, 2011 by the Department of Workforce Development.

It was the single largest monthly job loss since Republican Scott Walker took office in January 2011, and the largest since April 2009, according to state statistics.

It's also the fifth consecutive month of job losses.

Walker's top campaign promise was that the state would add 250,000 private-sector jobs before the end of his four-year term. The new report puts state private-sector employment at 2,333,508, compared with 2,317,200 when Walker took office -- an increase of 16,308 jobs. That leaves the governor with 233,692 jobs left to achieve his promise.

Three more years! Three more years!

>

As Althouse and her heartthrob Limbaugh will be doing some serious spinning the next couple mos. :-P

Walker's top campaign promise was that the state would add 250,000 private-sector jobs before the end of his four-year term. The new report puts state private-sector employment at 2,333,508, compared with 2,317,200 when Walker took office -- an increase of 16,308 jobs. That leaves the governor with 233,692 jobs left to achieve his promise.

That's apples and oranges because Walker is cashing in on the Obama job creation that is affecting the entire country.

WI should be compared to other states so that we can isolate how WI compares when it's broken out of the bigger BHO picture.

The country has gone from 9% to 8.5% during the Walker reign. That is a reduction of a half a percent for the country as a whole. WI is lagging the country as a whole. What Walker policy screw-ups have resulted in WI falling so far behind the rest of the country?

Facts, results.

[General disclaimer: Yes, I do realize that it is stupid to directly attach all job creation (and destruction) to politicians. Please don't take my contributions to this thread too earnestly. I'm only playing along because some cons seem to think that such direct attachments are reasonable, but only if they help the con cause.]

Wait, Obama inherited a huge deficit/debt...and made it worse. Walker inherited the same, and made it better.

PB&J, the usefulness of comparing your achievements to your predecessor is to show how you've improved the situation. BHO exacerbated the largest problem facing our economy (and Wisconsin's), while Walker corrected the only thing he has direct control over.

These are very basic differences that should be readily apparent to even the casual observer.

"[General disclaimer: Yes, I do realize that it is stupid to directly attach all job creation (and destruction) to politicians. Please don't take my contributions to this thread too earnestly. I'm only playing along because some cons seem to think that such direct attachments are reasonable, but only if they help the con cause.]"

[General disclaimer: some people have nothing of substance to add, so they take a flamethrower to strawmen.]

I'm not one to ascribe private sector hiring directly to a government exec, but the raw facts are that under Walker there has, so far, been a net employment gain that turned around a 4-year slide under Doyle.

You will be surprised to learn that BHO was handed a huge deficit and debt, that was largely caused by R policies. That's a lot more new spending than BHO created.

On the revenue side, presumably you don't think that the BHO fed gov has been collecting too much of our total GDP as tax revenue, since we've been at levels much lower than we saw during the Reagan years.

garage mahal said...No time available to Wisconsin press today to discuss historic recalls back home, but Walker has time for Limbaugh, Hank Greenburg and $2500 per plate fundraisers in Manhattan. GREAT optics.

It's amazing that he can do all that and still not be seen as bloated, overbearing, and inflexible. Those public sector unions must have spent years honing their image to tower so over the very image of Governor of Wisconsin. I wonder, just for shits and grins, what the per annum salary difference is between Walker and the top union official in Wisconsin. Do you happen to know garage?

The WJC surpluses* were for real (Newt even takes credit for them, incl the years he wasn't in congress).

For the record, as much as anything, these surpluses were the result of cuts in military spending after the collapse of the SU. But, that doesn't change the reality of the foreign nation building, tax cutting, and other W deficit creators that dwarf BHO's new spending, as is shown by the link I provided.

*Of course there was only one year where the gov more or less had a "true" surplus because they managed to (w/in a rounding error) balance the budget even w/o excluding intra-gov borrowing (aka raiding soc sec, etc).

PackerB,

Look at the link I provided. You'll see that the big new spending came from W pushed programs.

What I find amazing is whether you think the Walker record on jobs in his first year is good or bad or mediocre, the Dems are going have to convince the majority of citizens in this state that things are SO BAD that we have to recall Walker after being in office for a year and a half.

I just don't see them making that sale to anyone who's not state employee. And quite frankly there's going to be a sizable number of voters who will want to stop this recall nonsense in its tracks. They know if Walker gets recalled it will set an undesirable precedent for future elections in the state.

How will you convince the voter who says, "I don't see things as being so terrible to require a recall and Walker needs a full term to succeed or fail just like every other elected governor." That's the voter who will decide this election.

Almost everything that has happened regarding the federal budget over the last 20 years is meaningless compared to the deficits to come. It's noise. Sometimes tax money flooded in as profiteers cashed in their bubble profits. Sometimes tax money flooded out when the bubbles crashed.

The only important thing Walker said is this: "We made structural changes that think more about the next generation than just about the next election. And we were able to protect core services by making these reforms."

If you think this is true, vote for him. If not, not.

Can Obama say the same thing? If so, how? What structural changes has Obama made that will protect core services down the road? Be specific.

"I don't see things as being so terrible to require a recall and Walker needs a full term to succeed or fail just like every other elected governor."

Speaking as that voter, I'll say it would depend on the Democrat running. Walker has some weaknesses that some Democrats might be able to exploit.

I do agree, though, that in general it's a bad idea to recall a Gov just because he passes a law that you disagree with. Recalls should be reserved for criminals. I voted against Walker two Novembers ago. I wasn't thrilled that he won, but I wasn't surprised either. I don't expect the candidate I support to win every time, and you just wait the one you don't like out. The pendulum in politics swings both ways.

"They know if Walker gets recalled it will set an undesirable precedent for future elections in the state."

>

"I do agree, though, that in general it's a bad idea to recall a Gov just because he passes a law that you disagree with."

>

Undesirable precedent being that Walker didn't campaign on union busting, but once elected seemed like that was his goal all along. As w/many of the new Rep govs, of course, didn't work so well for Kasich.

So, if Walker ran on union busting and still got elected he probably wouldn't be recalled. Truth in advertising, so to speak.

Indeed, you don't expect the opposition party to pass much of anything you agree with, but you expect them to be truthful.

Undesirable precedent being that Walker didn't campaign on union busting, but once elected seemed like that was his goal all along. As w/many of the new Rep govs, of course, didn't work so well for Kasich.

Check out the campaign ads that were run against Walker in which it was claimed that he was going to do the things that he later did.

So, I want to understand your position. Are you saying that the unions lied in the campaign, attributing to Walker positions he didn't take during the campaign?

Or were they accurate about Walker's position, but people voted for Walker anyway?

That's pretty thin gruel to base a recall on, but you know, now that there's gonna be a recall, that's one of things you gonna have to convince voters about.

"Walker lied when he did the things we accused him of intending to do"

Speaking as that voter, I'll say it would depend on the Democrat running. Walker has some weaknesses that some Democrats might be able to exploit.

I think the independent voter is going to look at this a little differently because it's a recall. Recall's rarely succeed because there's a deep-seeded bias against suspending a duly-elected official's term in office without just cause. Many voters, who may be persuaded in a general election to vote against Scott Walker, will still vote for him because they'll feel this whole situation lacks fundamental fairness. And they won't want to reward Walker-haters for a 16-month temper tantrum that has cost the state millions of dollars.

You will be surprised to learn that BHO was handed a huge deficit and debt, that was largely caused by R policies. That's a lot more new spending than BHO created.

Actually, no. The budget deficit didn't really start exploding until the Dems retook Congress in 2006. What you are talking about are the results of the actions of the 110th Congress, with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi at the helm. Of course, the deficit then more than doubled when the Dems also took the Presidency in 2008.

And never forget that a good part of the reason that the home loan market imploded was that Fannie and Freddie, under pressure from esp. Barney Frank, were taking most of the subprime loans by early 2008 - loans destined to failure since they were, by definition, given to people with little hope of repaying them, all so that home ownership was more fairly distributed. So much for fairness - home ownership has crashed since then. If I remember right, that alone was most of a trillion dollars of Obama's debt. And, yes, both Fannie and Freddie had been run for years as a sinecure for Dem pols.

If an independent, objective, audit of the signatures can be made-(silly me)- I wonder what percentage will be found to be fake and or fraudulent.After all it is Madison and vote stealing is how the democrats/proggs roll.

Speaking as that voter, I'll say it would depend on the Democrat running.

Madman is still clinging to his fantasy that there is some Democrat that can fool the rubes into thinking he is pro-business. However, at this point, they've all cast their lots with the unions. Just yesterday the right-wing rag Cap Times was reporting how the unions were behind closed doors picking the Democrat candidate.

Walker said, "We made structural changes that think more about the next generation than just about the next election."That particular phrasing really strikes a chord with me. So much of what is going on financially on all levels of government is not sustainable. It has to be recognized and dealt with in a responsible way. WI is fortunate to have Scott Walker.

Look at the link I provided. You'll see that the big new spending came from W pushed programs.

Fact: federal spending on food stamps has doubled since George W. Bush left office.

And since food stamps are Democratic spending programs, we can remove them from the "Bush spending" column (along with Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Schip) and note that using your logic Bush ran surpluses.

When 98 percent of union members work for employers who are not subject to competition (e.g. government, regulated monopolies, etc.)?

Because, by far the biggest union-buster is market competition. Which is why the threat of public-sector unionism is not just the higher cost and lower quality of a union-protected workforce, but in the relentless pressure to increase the size of the public sector.

If unions ever learn how to add value and not just cost to labor then they'll be worthy of public support and legal protection. Until then, attempts to fix the price of labor are no more legitimate than attempts by business to fix the prices of the goods and services it offers. Especially in the public sector, where market discipline is absent.

Actually, if you are taking Walker literally, there was a slight drop in jobs based on the available data--a net drop in jobs Jan--Nov (the last month for which data is available). Even if you give him the benefit of the doubt and give him a full year, there still is a net loss of jobs (you would have to use Apr 2011 as a baseline to find a net gain in jobs in 2011).

Follow the link I provided and then come back and explain the numbers to me.

Speaking of facts where is the link to show me all the outside state union money flowing in? I can find evidence of all the outside funding flowing in for Walker as he makes his usual claims. Given that a million folks signed the petition thanks to a grass roots effort, I think the re-call will be close and will depend on how folks assess the Walker effect in their life. Employment has not risen significantly, property taxes are down because housing prices have dropped, and up-state schools are now talking about dropping classes and increasing class sizes-- even the fabled Waukesha School District finds itself fighting to save the music program and its bands. While Walker has earned the trust of Althouse and Meade, many of us, myself included, are not convinced.

My property taxes are down because the city/school etc reduced their levy. House values having nothing to do with the levy (total amount gathered by the government entity).

My property value has gone down....but the assessed value placed on it by government has remained unchanged. My taxes are based on the assessed value, not current value.

People a few blocks away in Milwaukee in the same type of house as mine pay the same dollar amount in prop taxes. Their houses are worth significantly less because no middle class family with kids wants to live in Milwaukee but the mil rate they pay is much higher.

The only true overall measure of an overall property tax hike or decrease is the property tax levy.

It is so cute when you pretend a million different people signed those petitons.

Really, its touching.

PS, even assuming the 1 million figure to be true, Wisconsin’s voting-age population currently stands at around 4.3 million people, meaning less than 25 percent of eligible citizens signed a recall petition.

1.My property taxes went down under Walker. They never did under Doyle.2.Wisconsin's structural budget deficit got fixed.3.Many local unions rushed to get their last gasp contracts signed before the budget repair bill took effect (see Senate Democrats fleeing the state and lawsuits delaying in order to get these contracts ratified). Once these contracts expire, the fiscal benefits to state and local government are really going to be felt.4.Private sector job growth in Wisconsin has been retarded by the uncertainty generated by the recall climate.5.Anybody who thinks out of state union money is not coming into Wisconsin is delusional. There just aren't that many Wisconsinites who walk around wearing Bears, Lions, Flyers, Bruins, White Sox etc. garb!5. Yeah, there is going to be a lot of out of state money coming into Wisconsin to support Walker, but it would not have been coming here if the Dems hadn't decided to recall. I would call it evening the playing field.

And, the fact that BHO's election has resulted in a job market that is creating one million more jobs per month, relative to what he inherited, is irrelevant.

Of course, this is why unemployment has increased right? And that labor participation rate is the lowest it's been in decades? All that job growth increases unemployment and decreases job participation? Ha! pbj, you're hilarious.

The contortion O supporters have to go through to say how much better the blue model is compared to the red despite the fact that O has destroyed the job market, all states dedicated to the blue state model are failing (with the bluest of the blue, NY, CA, MI, actually failed states), whereas states following the red state model actually has, you know, economic success (with TX responsible for most of the job creation in the entire country).

I don't live in Wisconsin, so I am not going to recall him for anything. My point is that Althouse doesn't seem to care about the truth value of Walker's statement, which as Jay so helpfully points out, is technically correct--Walker has managed to create a whopping 2150 jobs (an incredible .95% decrease in the unemployment rate) in 2011.

PS, even assuming the 1 million figure to be true, Wisconsin’s voting-age population currently stands at around 4.3 million people, meaning less than 25 percent of eligible citizens signed a recall petition.

If he is going to run on job creation (again) it's not too impressive to compare the very small increase in jobs during his tenure to the job situation over three years spanning the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression. During the 2010 campaign e pledged 250,000 new jobs for Wisconsin. Democrats are going to compare his performance to that.